3 ms·
The basic problem is that the constituents of a constituency want opposing things. It’s an intractable problem that is only managed via laws. The result is t
by mc32 4y ago
The basic problem is that the constituents of a constituency want opposing things. It’s an intractable problem that is only managed via laws.
The result is that even in homogenous societies that have shared history and values have trouble reaching consensus.
Moreover even with the best intentions and actions one cannot predict unintended consequences or future events that are unaddressed by the past.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago> The basic problem is a the constituents of a constituency want opposing things. That’s true but there is also a very real constitutional problem here. My country has a system close to the US and sees the same issues. A good constitution should foster a viable ecosystem of parties each representing the interests of a relatively homogenous group then force these parties to build coalitions through negotiations. That garanties than people feel that their opinions are represented, that there are a plurality of opinions in debates and the necessity to govern with people with different interests mean a consensus has to be reached and nothing to extreme should happen. A system fostering two parties necessarily means the party will be caricatures. It’s obvious that both houses people with widely different opinions. It’s a travesty of democracy if you think about it.